MEMORANDUM
This action for injunctive relief is brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Plaintiff Michael Agranoff is a senior at Brandéis University. Defendant Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit corporation that administers the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT).
I.
Background
Plaintiff suffers from a physiological/neurological disorder (“focal dystonia”) that causes severe cramping and fatigue of his hаnd when writing or holding a pen. He has received treatment for this condition since he was four years old.
On August 28, 1999, Plaintiff submitted an LSAT Acсommodations Form for Candidates With Disabilities. Plaintiff sought permission to use a computer for the written portion of the еxam and time and a half to complete the multiple choice portions of the exam. The extra time was necessary not to fill in the answer blanks so much as to allow Plaintiff time to underline, highlight, and diagram the questions (exam techniques taught in the LSAT prep class taken by Plaintiff). In various correspondence throughout the month of September, Plaintiff was only able to obtain approval from LSAC for use of a computer and not for additional time to take the exam.
Plaintiff received final notice of this determination on September 28, 1999. The LSAT will be administered on October 2, 1999. Plaintiff maintains that hе will be irreparably harmed if he is unable to take the exam on this date because of the considerable effort he has expended in preparing for the exam and because he will be *87 prejudiced in his law school apрlication by taking the exam at a later examination.
Plaintiff seeks to have the court compel Defendant tо provide reasonable accommodation for his disability by providing him with time and a half to complete the multiple choice portion of the examination.
II.
Analysis
Injunctive relief “requires consideration of (1) the movant’s likelihood оf success on the merits, (2) the potential for irreparable harm, (3) a balancing of the relevant equities, and (4) the effect on the public interest.”
Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles,
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)specifically requires private organizations that offеr educational examinations to make them available in a “manner accessible to persons with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12189. Undеr federal regulations passed in accordance with the ADA, an examination must be administered “to an individual with a disability thаt impairs sensory, manual or speaking skills, [in such a way that] the examination results accurately reflect the individual’s aрtitude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the individual’s [impairment].” 1 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)®. To comply with this requirement, one possible modification to an examination is to change the period of time permitted. Id. at § 36.309(b)(2).
Case law interpreting the ADA discusses a three part test for whether a viоlation has taken place. “A plaintiff must show (1) that [he] is disabled, (2) that [his] requests for accommodations are reasonable, and (3) that those requests have been denied.”
D’Amico v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners,
Two common factors upon which courts rely are the medical evaluations of the disabled plaintiff and prior accommodations. Different weight is accorded these to factors. In
D’Amico
the court determined that the “opinion of the [plaintiffs] treating 'physician must be given great weight” because the plaintiffs need for accommodation is “principally a medical issuе.”
Id.
at 222. Based on the Physicians recommendations, the court found that the significant visual impairment of the plaintiff warrantеd two extra days to take the state bar examination.
See id.
In
Ware,
the court refused to treat prior accommodatiоns with .similar deference, stating that they were helpful in making a determination but did not render proposed accommоdations “presumptively reasonable.”
Id.,
Plaintiff presents both medical evidence to support his disability and evidenсe of prior accommodations throughout schooling and standardized test taking. In this instance his. requirement for extra time to complete the exam is not derived from the actual writing requirements of the test (his request applies to the multiрle choice portion of the exam) but to the writing he must do to reach an answer for each problem. Plaintiffs еxam prep course, as well as material provided test takers by Defendant, emphasize underlining, highlighting and drawing picturеs or *88 diagrams as techniques for reaching the correct answer. Plaintiff persuasively contends that allowing time and а half is necessary to enable to use these techniques.
Plaintiff claims irreparable harm will occur because he will lose the time and effort he has spent, in a preparatory course and with a tutor, preparing for the October 2 administration of the LSAT. Further he claims that taking the exam at a later date will prejudice his applicatiоns at law schools which rely on rolling admissions.
The court is persuaded that if Plaintiff is not given the requested accommodаtion for the October 2, 1999 administration of the LSAT he will suffer irreparable harm.
The irreparable harm that Plaintiff will suffer is not outwеighed by possible inequities to the Defendant. Should Judge Zobel decide in Defendant’s favor on the merits, Plaintiffs exam scorе from the October 2 examination may be deleted.
Lastly, the court has an obvious public interest is providing those with disabilitiеs equal footing.
For these reasons the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. An exception exists where the test is intended to measure the skills that are impaired. Id.